Subject:
|
Re: foo!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Nov 2001 02:27:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2037 times
|
| |
|
|
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:GMIFnJ.37@lugnet.com...
> 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)
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 through to LEGO. I'm not saying the meat of your thoughts is in error,
just your methods of communicating them are misdirected.
> For years, y'all wandered in TLC's silence -- now they occasionally toss • off
> an email and they somehow should be treated like gods for it? Whatever...
Every crowd has a stupid lining - that's a funny quote (I think its from
Quotes-R-us, thanks Matt Miller), but it has some truth to it if you think
about it. There are definitely things LEGO can do to be more open to the
fan community. But the way to get them to come to that point is not by
throwing insults at them either. And, don't you think they deserve some
thanks for what they've done for us so far?
> BTW, I do think they read these posts -- if for no other reason than • because
> someone as genteel as Tim Courtney responded to it. Thank you very much. • But
> if they would otherwise blow it off, then they do me a disservice -- no • one
> but an admirer of their products would have written that post to begin
with.
Say you had a repeat customer who has bought several pieces of artwork from
you approach you about a recent piece. 'This sucks, its stupid, make it
different, I owe you nothing.' Would you not shut the person off and go on
the defensive? If the same person approached you about the same piece and
said, 'this isn't quite to my liking, here's what I'd like to see different,
give it a shot and I'll probably buy it from you.' - is this a response that
would make you more willing to work with the customer to please them?
> Funny thing is -- drop the froggy, angry silliness and the subject line • and
> you would have written it yourself in more or less the same words.
...because without the angry silliness it has a good message behind it.
Didn't I say that I believe what you're trying to say is right on, but your
methods are misguided?
> Tell ya what though, if Todd Lehman, Suzanne Rich, Steve Bliss, or either • of
> the two Bogers asks me to tone it down -- I will. I will bow to the
> administrators of Lugnet.
I'm intimidated by your use of those names. Please stop. <grin>
No seriously, I don't think I can actually tell you to stop and be obeyed.
I don't think I have some sort of authority over what you post at all. I am
excercising my right to share my opinion about LEGO and about the way you
are giving them feedback. Feel free to ignore me.
However, I do think I have the credibility to hold and post a well
formulated opinion about LEGO, the product line, and methods of working with
them on improving that product line. So, I will continue to post my opinion
with the objective of being a constructive contributor to the community. If
that consists of voicing an opinion about how someone else is posting, so be
it. Deal.
As I said, you're free to ignore me.
> Someday, as some have suggested, I probably WILL stop buying the brick --
> its demands are high and payoffs sometimes quite attenuated.
Go right ahead and stop buying. It would send a better message to LEGO than
comments like 'you suck.'
> Everyone that
> knows me well has asked me to stop playing with Lego and get back to • drawing
> and writing with more serious media. See: http://www.anvilgallery.n3.net/
> and decide for yourself if I don't suck as an artist in more traditional
media.
Might be a more constructive use of your time.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: foo!
|
| (...) 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!
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | foo!
|
| (...) 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)
|
13 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
|
|
|
|
