 | | A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Thank You, Larry. I hate to add one more post to this thread, but feel the need. I totally agree with what you say about everyone just stopping. But, I think this thread is a real eye-opener as to the nature of this community. Is this really (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
(...) I'm glad I could be of service. ;) But I'm afraid you're mixing up so many things I really don't wish to sort it out for you. And better never, ever mention George Doubble-You to "Old Europeans" like me ... (...) Try something stronger than (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) I agree that some here are stubborn and some here are seeing things all topsy turvy, yes. Where I differ with you, though, is in the identification of which group of people that appelation belongs to, and which group it doesn't belong to. We (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) The issue is not TLC did 'exactly the opposite' of what they said, they made sound business decisions based on all available information at the time. So, in my humble opinion, it's your flawed analysis of the situation that's cause for (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) Oh dear. You are really stubborn, Kelly, as well as persistent in seeing things from upside down. Imagine, just for a moment, somebody tells you one thing, then does the exact opposite. You're following so far? Great. So, wouldn't you be (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Jacob Davies wrote: <snip> (...) Second this sentiment Dave K (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) Excellent, I look forward to getting a copy of this set (I hadn't heard about it until this posting). (Speaking, I guess, as a Lego collector: I don't collect based on whether something is rare or not, but on whether I like the model. My (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) Actually, the core question is more directly this: Should LEGO customers feel entitled to tell LEGO how to conduct their business? Unfortunately, several people here believe they do feel so entitled, by doing LEGO the favor of purchasing their (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
(...) What is even more clear is that, at the time, TLC stated 'we have such-n-such quantity of Maersk Blue in stock and want to do something with it. Since, at htis time, we don't have a contract with Maersk for anything, we'll get rid of our stock (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
(...) That's not how I took it. But look at the way it was explained to the Germans via their liason (thanks to Rene's post): (URL) Doesn't get more clear than that IMO. JOHN (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
