To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.legoOpen lugnet.lego in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 LEGO Company / 3029
3028  |  3030
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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR