| |
I've been skimming the posts about this issue, and maybe I'm missing
the point, but it seems to me that if LEGO didn't want its people
posting on lugnet, they woud take care of that at lego. Often you
hear about people workgin at such-and-such and sent some improper
e-mails and got warned then got fired. If LEGO doesn't want thier
people to make offical posts with thier offical .lego.com address,
they can tell thier people not to post.
I dont think it's someone elses place to filter out a message from a
specific domain just becuase of the domain.
If we want lego to know what we want, we need them to read our posts.
If they can't reply to a post, they might not even bother to read.
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:06:29 GMT, "Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com>
wrote:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Christian Gemünden writes:
>
> > Usually, I am not the buy who steps in for a "mee too" (as this is mostly
> > useless On Lugnet when talking about MOCs or new products. However, as this
> > is a really important subject for the entire philosophy of Lugnet, I had to
> > emphasize Mikes words, as they represent my opinion and I think each opinion
> > is important in this case.
>
> I have to put in a hearty 'mee too' with you, Christian.
>
> > I personally dislike any decision that will result in limitation of
> > communication between TLC and AFOLs. And although Todd does not see this
> > change as "limitation", this recent incident has drawn my highest attention
> > as Lugnet has lost a big part of his value for me!
>
> Its lost value for me too. I prefer open communication, and not every post
> of theirs at a lego.com address outside of lego.* groups can be considered a
> marketing agenda. Give me a break.
>
> > In case you disagree, put my posting aside as a regular "just his two
> > worthless cents" *OR* give me more reasons that better explain the reasons
> > that caused these hasty changes - I prefer the latter!
>
> Unfortunately, given the number of posts against this, and the amount of
> reconsidering being done, it looks like its the former.
>
> With TLC's involvement in this group more, it won't be super-threatening
> with marketing schtuff. LEGO Direct has said they want open communication,
> and right now we're getting it, and I think that's a good thing. I'm sure
> they want to do more in the future too, lets not hinder them.
>
> I have a question, how does this fit with the lego.direct posting
> restriction rules being considered? If both were implemented, it would make
> open communication *very* difficult.
>
> -Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: ME TOO
|
| (...) I have to put in a hearty 'mee too' with you, Christian. (...) Its lost value for me too. I prefer open communication, and not every post of theirs at a lego.com address outside of lego.* groups can be considered a marketing agenda. Give me a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
232 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
