 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Indeed. I have wondered why the same names keep popping up over and over with respect to TLC negativity. Almost feels a bit like a psy-ops campaign. Free speech is one thing. Excess indulgence is another. fut to .off-topic.debate ( shame we (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Rob Hendrix wrote: <snip> (...) Yeah, as soon as I saw those, I thought of the pain you'd be feeling. After checking yout your wonderful work at BF this past summer, this one from TLC has got to suck. Well, don't forget you got the (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
"Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote in message news:I8xw3s.KoJ@lugnet.com... (...) Thanks Jake. Thanks for bringing us this news in person so we can be prepared before the actual event occurs. As for the rest of you, hmm, let's see (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Hmm. More sweeping statements, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Again. (...) If you're aware of the ratio between LEGO soliciting opinions and acting on opinions, then you must have some data to back it up. Show it. Put up or shut up. My (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Hi John, I wasn't actually referring to you personally... more the continuous TLC-bashing I've seen from some people, and not just on this subject. Makes you wonder why some people bother frequenting LUGNET, or buying LEGO, at all, if they (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Perhaps there are different connotations of the term "limited"? "Limited" in that we will purposefully limit production to X number of units to create collector demand, and will never produce them again, thus protecting their collector's (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
|
(...) At the time, it was. Does that negate new contracts with Maersk? Dave K (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure that the 10152 wasn't either. This whole thing seems to turn on a mistranslation more than anything else. That's pretty funny at one level, actually. Most of the rest of the difference appears to be cultural, we seem to have a (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
|
(...) Wrong. TLC stated that they had old Maersk Blue pellets and 'wouldn't it be nice to give the AFOL a really cool set and use up the pellets at the same time'. Why should that negate future contracts? It was a business decision made at the time (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure the duck wasn't marketed as a "limited edition of 10,000". It really matters not what their excuss is if they changed their mind they could have changed the model. Their move was compleatly unethical and problably leaves them (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
