Subject:
|
Re: Color Change background
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.color
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 2004 01:15:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1132 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.color, Terry Prosper wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
> snip
> > the costs would simply be
> > incredible prohibitive at this point (we lost a bit of money last year...),
> > we’ve tried to do our best to help deliver to you as much as we can to help
> > this transition. Is that trying to "keep you quiet"? Not to me… to me, it’s
> > trying to respond to your needs. Those things include:
>
> I believe that quote was from me :-)
> It's a sad joy (sic) to be quoted here. Well, maybe Jake didn't quote me but
> someone who said the same thing as I said, but nevertheless, I'm glad to see
> Jake truly understood my opinion.
>
> > * Admitting that we made a mistake in our implementation
>
> I still think that admitting an error but not correcting it isn't enough. I do
> recognize now that Jake is trying to help, something I found hard to believe
> before, but I simply don't see the point of admitting an error, on LEGO's
> behalf, and saying at the same time that the damage is done and there's no way
> they'll go back. The money argument isn't strong enough for me.
>
>
> > * Defining in writing, what colors have been locked i.e. defined as
> > “universal”, thus being “untouchable” (will have a full list once it’s
> > ready in a few weeks)
>
> Oh! Here! Here! Please don't say that you didn't learn the lesson! WE ARE
> HERE! Why not asking us our opinion on the colors that should be universal!? I
> think that TLG should have a more open-minded attitude towards us. We're the
> biggest test group in the world. We are demanding on quality and unlike
> children, we really care about small details, like HAVING COLORS THAT STAY
> CONSISTENT!!!
>
>
If you look carefully at what you are writing you might just see the flaw
in your logic. 1st of all... Lego (through Jake) admitted an error in
implementation... but were clear that they still believe in the colour change.
How are they supposed to correct that error??? They can not undo their
implementation... and do not believe the colour change to be an error.
So your statement seems to me not to make any sense.
Further... you state that "unlike children...". We can argue that statement,
however if you believe it to be true then Lego really should NOT base any
decisions on our input. Clearly the revenue from children (or parents buying
for them) is far greater than any influence, direct or indirect, that the
AFOL community has.
I personally believe Lego should (and now will) listen to the AFOL community
but their primary market will not be us and at times that will cause a
conflict in what we want them to do and what they will do.
My opinion is however, that people should think with their head and not
their hearts on this issue... as hard as that might be. Otherwise it is
difficult to separate the valid concerns, complaints and suggestions from
the mindless rambling.
Jeff
- SNIP -
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Color Change background
|
| (...) To me, the bad implementation should never have occured in the first place because of the consequences. You may be right on this, I still think they are aware of the terrible decision they took and they are just trying (through Jake) to (...) (20 years ago, 14-May-04, to lugnet.color)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Color Change background
|
| In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote: snip (...) I believe that quote was from me :-) It's a sad joy (sic) to be quoted here. Well, maybe Jake didn't quote me but someone who said the same thing as I said, but nevertheless, I'm glad to see Jake truly (...) (20 years ago, 14-May-04, to lugnet.color)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
