 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) SNIP (...) 230 proves that it's not as cut and dry as you'd like it to be. This is another bad decision that will alienate more customers and financialy they can not afford to be doing so. With a little thought a new supply of (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Obviously at this point the press release has been pulled. I was virtuly identical as the post Jake put up acting as a representitive of TLC. It was also marketed so by SHO and the "limited" aspect was played up there more than anywhere. (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I'd say "LAST CHANCE" pretty much locks that up. SNIP "If" there were a way to stop Bin Laden from causing (...) I really don't get all of these u-turns in the name of whatever but since you bring it up "IF" Bill Clinton had taken Bin Laden (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Discounts
|
|
Are there any Lugnet or ILTCO discounts at S@H. If so what is the discount code? Lester (22 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) I forgot all about this ine--TLC can't win one way or the other. Nice catch Larry and Dave. (...) As Dave just stated--there was no 'word' given--just the statement of facts that at the time were (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:I9GuDD.nKo@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) we've (...) [ ... snipped ... ] Neither of these posts by LEGO employees is a Press Release. If these posts are what Ken is referring to as (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure it qualifies as an actual "press release", but what I think we've been referring to is Jake's post on Lugnet: (URL) the post on 1000steine, which supposedly had very similar content: (URL) almost vaugely remember this set being on (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Yeah, but what they said was true. "This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At Home." It *WAS* a small run, and it *WAS* limited to 14K, and 10K *DID* go to S@H. Please point out the exact error in the phrase, (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
"Ken Nagel" <knandjn@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:I9GHGE.1z3u@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) be (...) [ ... snipped ... ] Where is this press release you refer to? I looked for a copy of the press release on LEGO.com was unable to (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) Because that is what they said and words mean things. (...) "If" doesn't much matter as "if" wasn't true so they chose to market it as a limited set. The new color (that they took back) doesn't matter as that was to be a diffrent (...) (22 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
