 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) Are you implying that profitability and integrity are mutually exclusive? I hope not. JOHN (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
(...) know he's doing a great job at being a liason. I care so much that I'm spending more now on LEGO products than I did before. I care to the point where I do shows and displays to show off what can be done with LEGO bricks to get otehr people (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote: [snippage] (...) are saying is so "George Double-You" that it is almost too good :-) So either we complain about every single thing TLC does or we don't CARE? How about all the fans that are happy with this (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
(...) Uh, John. That *is* what Jake said. Well, he certainly didn't say claim anything *stronger* than that -- actually, what he said was more low key, if anything. (URL) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
(...) I got to 0 already because I keep getting this picture in my head: [comic book guy] Oh my gosh! The release will reduce the collectibility of my sets from 5 of 14000 to 5 of 2x000! I must go to the internet and complain! [/comic book guy] (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
