Subject:
|
Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Dec 1999 23:33:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1603 times
|
| |
|
|
Jeremy Rear wrote:
> Suzanne-
>
> I acutally have to disagree with your comment here.
>
> If they wanted to keep this information confidential, then they would not have
> released ANY of the information given to us, by means of a thrid part
> correspondent, or by someone directly within the company. I don't think that
> our reputation as LEGO® users is, at any degree, in jeopardy due to the
> release of information.
>
> Besides, the adult LEGO® user group arena is so insignificant to the number of
> children who use their product, that it probably would not effect their
> marketing goals or strategies.
>
> My 2 cents worth.
>
> -jeremy
>
> In lugnet.general, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > In lugnet.announce, Huw Millington writes:
> > > A correspondent has sent me this list, taken from the international
> > > retailers catalogue.
> > >
> > > Scans of interesting pages showing new sets can be seen at:
> >
> > [confidential internal LEGO Company info snipped]
> > >
> > > Huw
> >
> > Huw,
> >
> > I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your correspondent
> > (name?) neglected their responsibility to inform you that the information
> > passed
> > along to you was meant only for retailers and then only for ordering purposes.
> > The retailer catalog is traditionally a closely guarded item, never meant for
> > public (including competitor) consumption.
> >
> > As a truly good intentioned LEGO enthusiast, I am asking you to remove these
> > illegal scans from internet publication and also ask Todd to delete your
> > previous post. This is in response to my desire to keep the delicate
> > relationship between adult online enthusiasts and the LEGO Company intact. It
> > also is protective of smaller retailers and of the LEGO Company itself. I could
> > go into a discussion of why what you have done is against the interest of the
> > company, but I'll save it -- assuming you agree with the above.
> >
> > Please excuse my curt reaction, but I am quite stunned and alarmed.
> >
> > -Suz.
> >
> > These words are my own and in no way represent the position of MIT Media Lab.
I aggree with this. the hollywood news sites regularly post "insider gossip" on the
latest hollywood films so why shouldn't we post pictures of this dealers catalog. If
someone has scans then that is ok.
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) Hollywood "insider gossip" is a little different, Jonathan. Movie rumors and leaked trade secrets rarely infringe on copyrights at respectable sites. How many "Hollywood news sites" do you see with illicit movie scripts or leaked scans of (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| Suzanne- I acutally have to disagree with your comment here. If they wanted to keep this information confidential, then they would not have released ANY of the information given to us, by means of a thrid part correspondent, or by someone directly (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
105 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
