 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Cool. I may have to squirrel away some cash to buy a few more. (...) While I think more Maersk blue is good, I'm bummed at the news that the dark blue may not happen. Even though I voted for the dark green, I still was looking forward to (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
