 | | Re: Lego hostility —Allan Bedford
|
| | | (...) I agree, his tone might have been a bit harsh... there are probably ways to express these feelings and maintain a little more integrity. (...) Well... good. I hope you're right. Maybe some of this dissatisfaction might eventually trickle up (...) (23 years ago, 8-Nov-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego hostility —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | "Allan Bedford" <apotomeREMOVE-THIS@...vista.net> wrote in message news:GMI9n7.8q1@lugnet.com... (...) I recall a discussion I had with a couple of them towards the beginning of the year when Richard was commenting quite harshly then too. When I (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego hostility —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | (...) I completely agree with you. That was why I prefaced my comments with this statement: +++...+++ (...) +++...+++ (...) Well... I have mixed feelings about this stance. Normally I'm considered a very reasonable person. More than once co-workers (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | foo! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) Which disturbed you then and disturbs you now? C'mon? Reread it, it's not that harsh -- except for maybe the subject line. Disturbs? I think you aren't actually losing any sleep over it, Tim. ;o) Anyway, you know what I owe TLC? Nothing. For (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: foo! —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:GMIFnJ.37@lugnet.com... (...) Fine, disturb may have been the wrong word to use. But, it still upsets me in the sense that I believe its futile and not the kind of message that will get (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: foo! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | (...) And you think there are ways to get through to them that work? Do tell... (...) Yes, and I have given such thanks over the Guarded Inn, for example. Of course the devil is in the details -- I wasn't quite as pleased to actually receive the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: foo! —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | Hi Richard - "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:GMJ85G.9KB@lugnet.com... (...) My thoughts are - just keep persistent at the constructive criticism. Allan mentioned that he was committed to whining and complaining until (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: foo! — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) The lugnet.dear-lego group is for posting open letters to TLC, not for debates. Richard's original post in this thread was on-topic to the group. At this point, however, both of you are straying pretty wildly off-topic for the group. Please (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lego hostility —Katie Dokken
|
| | | | (...) Amen! I'm not posting this message as a "response" to your response but more as a direct post to Lego. I didn't want to say anything but I recently had a nightmare of an experience with the Customer "Service" Representatives at the S & H 800 (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | |
