 | | Re: Enough already
|
|
(...) materials (...) they (...) Lego is being generous? I would say they're being practical, having concluded that the ill-will generated and costs involved in pursiring the removal of scans is not worth the perceived benefit. Let's not forget that (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) Won't happen. LEGO won't sell to us at a price that would allow us to build our own X-Wing sets (for example) more cheaply than we can buy them from Walmart. Depend on that. They won't have every piece available for sale, and they won't be (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Enough already
|
|
(...) Don't give in to the dark side, Laura. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Enough already
|
|
(...) And then Lego, the company, starts talking illegal legalese right at the beginning. It sort of got to me, because, well, I'd hoped those sorts of things were over with. No go, apparently. Note that the posts madde bry Brad the person as (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) Exactly why do you see bulk parts sales (and for special, one-in-one-set pieces we're still only talking about maybe a few thousand copies, remember) as being cheap enough for that? I doubt the basic bricks will dip significantly belowe bucket (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Enough already
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) BAD choice of words on my part :>( . Jump to conclusions may be better.... I agree. I am a "show me" person, too. I just think that we need to wait to see TLC ante-up before swamping them with legal talk. Let (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) God, I certainly hope so. You know, if they'd make for example a lynx-friendly version of your site, they could announce it on slashdot and freshmeat for a hell of a lot of extra traffic. See the recently published study on "the slashdot (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Doesn't webmaster@www.lego.com get read by the right people? Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Nah. Frames are _Evil_. The navigator team should all be shot, hung, drawn, and quartered for <blink>, <img>, and <frameset>. <blink> tag purposely left unclosed for those reading with extremely wonky newsclients. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Correction - it _should_ be. It never is in practice. Java, in my experience, sucks solar masses through bucky tubes. Not to mention it's habit of blue-screening Win9x, and crashing Navigator under linux. And lynx doesn't exactly play well (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Enough already
|
|
(...) Well... uh, I don't think I am advocating that, nor have I really seen anyone else DO that. I'm sure Brad is an ok guy. I'd like to meet him some day. Anything I say, good, bad, or otherwise, about Lego the _company_ isn't meant to "shoot" (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Enough already
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) I agree with you. No one can disagree with what you said. But why "shoot the messenger"? I prefer to be outwardly optimistic, and reserve cynicism. Just my personality..... (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Enough already
|
|
(...) Right. But let's not forget that many of us are FAR more enamored of Lego the PRODUCT than Lego the company. Aside from some recent slips in quality control (colors, mostly) Lego the PRODUCT has never let us down. Lego the COMPANY, though, has (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) Bull ;-) TLC will just price the bulk pieces high enough so that this is not economically viable. I just can't imagin them selling bulk parts for less than $.10-.20 on average, as that is what they cost in sets these days. -- Tom Stangl (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Jasper Janssen wrote: [RE: my hopeful dreamin' that LEGO will redesign their site for better usability and not for better security with obnoxious bells and whistles] (...) Well, to be honest, with the crew of designers they (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Enough already
|
|
(...) Yah Rose! I'll add my support behind everything she said. Three cheers for Rose for the courage to write it! Kevin Loch has done wonders with his site, and his self-imposed restrictions make perfect sense to me. When I read Brad's note, I (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Enough already
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message <385ce0d5.267874625@...et.com>... (...) Well put, Todd. After reading all this, including my wife's post, here's my "boiled-down" philosophy: 1) Brad (and his employer, TLG), have begun a dialog with us. Hasn't this been (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Enough already
|
|
(...) materials (...) <snipped to conserve bandwidth> You are certainly not in the minority here. I'm quieter than I used to be, (and I wasn't very loud to begin with.) TLC has done a whole wide world of service to all of us, just by coming up to (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair Play (was Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs)
|
|
(...) Not given the softer re-clarification, no. (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Yeah. Right. Color me skeptical. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
