 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) What's the use of integrity, if they go broke? Lego is a company, companies must generate profit or they will disappear, sales (mostly) generate profit ==> Lego should sell things. As many as they can. Not create artificial 'limited editions'. (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| (...) It was correct, until TLC decided to make it incorrect by consciously changing their mind. (...) I think so. Then we would have recognized it as the typical BS advert hype which we all know to ignore. (...) Are you by chance a lawyer, Dave? If (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote: <snip> (...) If they indeed said, "we will never produce this vehicle again" and they went ahead any way, you are okay with that??? Maybe this is a Liberal thing. It reminds me of a college professor who ran for a (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| (...) What constitutes actual advertising versus an employee stating something incorrectly? Was the phrasing of the post on 1000steine run by Lego's legal department, just as a paid advertisement would be? If they had instead said "This MIGHT be (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| (...) David, what you're telling us with so many words is that you're happy with your existing collection so that you actually don't have to care what TLG does or does not. That's ok. Nothing wrong with being a happy AFOL dwelling in the past. 37 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
|
