 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Agreed 100%. I don't wander out of the woodwork too often these days (and this is liable to change very soon--glory of glories, I get my collection back in MI close to New Years', and will have all 1400lb. in one place again), but the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| Thanks for the update Jake, and for yet again braving the criticism of those who only ever seem to see the negative side of things. I think in this instance, TLG were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they'd never said that the set (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Every time I seriously wonder to myself 'why do I torture myself with reading LUGNET anyways? [1]' it seems a gem like this pops up from someone like Kelly. He's not the only one who does 'em, but I just love how he puts stuff in perspective. (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Thanks for the update, Jake! After reading the various whining about "broken promises" in this thread, remember this: circumstances changed as they often do in life. Maersk wanted more of that set. They were willing to pony up to get it. Side (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX) !
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote: Hahaha! Yes I am laughing out loud about this..... I am not trusting in any word out of the LEGO Company as I mentioned a while ago. Now I am not surprised nor dissapointed as I would have been, if there still would (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
|
