Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:03:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
11032 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
| |
In fact, the run of this new set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we
have left. That means that there is literally no Maersk blue ABS left. Even
the parks can no longer get Maersk blue. This is a small run too – only
14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At Home.
|
I fully understand what Lego said.
|
It kinda doesn’t sound like you do. In the above quote they said:
1) they used up their existing supply of Maersk blue pellets. They did. It’s
true. Other than Jan’s comment on the German site (which translated roughly to
“this is your last chance to get Maersk blue”), they never said they would
never, ever, make more Maersk blue pellets.
2) They said there’s no Maersk blue ABS left. Obviously the intent in that
statement was “no Maersk blue ABS *PELLETS* left”, but that was also true. They
did NOT say Maersk blue would never again be made.
3) They said the parks can no longer get Maersk blue. Was also true, short of
getting Maersk blue from outside the company (IE they COULD have ordered things
through, say, BrickLink, despite the overwhelming stupidity of that
possibility).
4) They said the RUN, not the SET was limited to 14,000 copies. They said the
run they were doing would produce 14,000 copies of the set. They did NOT say
that future runs would never happen.
The only error I see in all of this was Jan’s statement. Sure, you may have
understood some unspoken implication, but the fact is it wasn’t stated, nor
intentionally implied.
| |
I fully understand they broke that promiss.
|
People keep referring to this as a promise-- I just don’t get it. We were told
the details of the run they were doing, and told that there weren’t plans to do
another one. They didn’t PROMISE by any stretch of the imagination that none
would ever exist. Other than Jan’s one statement, can you find the exact
instance where they “promised” not to make another Maersk blue set?
| |
When I say I will do something you can trust me to do it. How about you?
|
If an asteroid hit Billund tomorrow, destroying the supply of Maersk blue, and
Lego’s insurance didn’t cover ‘asteroid damage’, and Lego couldn’t afford to buy
or manufacture the new Maersk blue sets, would you still accuse Lego of breaking
their “promise”?
If Maersk decided for reasons unknown to call off the deal with Lego and work
with Mega Bloks instead, and forced Lego to cancel the production run, would you
still insist that Lego illegally sell the new run of Maersk blue ships?
At what point would you call it “breaking a promise” versus “acceptible breaking
of a promise”? (I assume if, say, you promised your friend that he could stay at
your house, and your house burned down, preventing you from being able to let
him stay there, that you wouldn’t call that a “broken promise”, but hey, maybe
you would, I dunno)
And why is this in BOTH o-t-d AND lugnet.lego? Isn’t that some sort of oxymoron?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote: SNIP (...) QUOTH JAKE MCKEE: "Then it’s time for another new adventure! It measures 69cm long and is your last chance to buy Maersk bricks! AND:This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to (...) (20 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
257 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
