Subject:
|
Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:57:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2934 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Richard Marchetti writes:
> I dunno. Bulk has actually been a disappointment to me -- there were maybe
> three items I wanted in the initial offerings (tiles, foliage, and those teeny
> windows), the rest was overpriced and pointless to me. I have made many deals
> of late that were far more advantageous by just buying stuff at deep discount.
Yeah, the bulk is just remodled parts packs to me, not true bulk.
> Brad's presence here has been in many ways more hindrance than help. We are
> not Lego insiders as much as we are part of a ready-made marketing technique
> of which TLC can avail itself.
Seem's like it to me...
>
> I don't want to discourage what might be a very worthy idea, but do you REALLY
> have something to say that hasn't already been said a cajillion times before
> to the point of total tedium? I think its fair to assert that TLC knows the
> score. But go for it -- maybe the manner in which you might express your
> ideas will do the trick this time!
TLC may be seeing it, but I don't think that they understand how many people
feel this way and one letter TO THEM instead of to the dear lego category here
will actually make an impact.
>
> We get conflicting information all the time about whether they are profiting
> or not. Juniorization continues to overwhelm, sets are overpriced, whenever
> they implement any of our requests it feels like too little too late, castle
> 2000 was a rather large disappointment (and I am someone who loved the black
> maiden hat and Fright Knights for that matter -- but again, it was a high
> price for juniorized elements), technic is starting to look like Znap.
Yep. Sadness, woe.
> So if they lose money, whose fault is it then? If they shoot themselves in
> the foot by bullying us around over trivialities rather than garnering our
> respect by open communications -- we should care?
Yes, like Tim has said, it would be MUTUALLY benaficial.
> You want to extend the hand of friendship, yet again, to a company one of
> whose products you helped destroy with LDraw? Isn't Creator being dumped as a
> cereal box promotion? Yeah, they want to talk to you -- you probably cost
> them hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I agree with what Tim says in his other message again.
> snip
> I like the bricks, I like the fans, I like Lugnet -- TLC I am not so sure
> about...I just want the bricks, they just want their money. • Thats what it's becoming with me too.
>
> -- Richard (Just call me Mr. Sunshine)
-Jonathan McKay
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| I dunno. Bulk has actually been a disappointment to me -- there were maybe three items I wanted in the initial offerings (tiles, foliage, and those teeny windows), the rest was overpriced and pointless to me. I have made many deals of late that were (...) (26 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
