Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:59:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
10719 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
SNIP
| |
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?
|
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 Shop At
Home.
More snippage...
| |
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 if the queen had B---s then she’d be king. There was no asteroid, no Mega
Block deal, and no fire. Pretty much no excuse for going back on a promiss.
Personally I keep my promisses. How about you?-Ken
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) I stand corrected! I skimmed right over that bit in Jake's post ((URL) repeatedly because I figured it was the S@H description. (...) The first quote I'll give you. That one by no means. It was true, still is true. No promises on possible (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) There was no promise! Stop saying that! Stop spinning this! At the time Jake said what he said, that's *exactly* what was going on--TLC had some leftover Maersk Blue pellets and no contract with Maersk Blue to warrant making more. Those are (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
