The LEGO Company : 3029


LEGO Company / 3029

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

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 (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) 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) —Ken Nagel

(...) And on the other side of the coin many want to defend the company no matter what they do. This is not bley or click hinges. This is basic morality.I'm with the "nay-sayers" because the company is on a destructive path and if they go down so (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) Ha! Clearly you haven't been reading all my posts. I think I get the most annoyed with people who leap to conclusions about things they shouldn't. They said that ONE phrase that was incorrect, and you and others jump down Lego's throat. They (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) The end justifies the means? (...) If their intent wasn't so then why did they present it as so? (...) If this wasn't part of a trend I have nothing to say. I find the color a curiosity, nothing I love. Nor am I an investor. The (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) How did you get "ends justify the means" out of that? Wouldn't "ends justify the means" imply that it was their intent all along to lie to us? Isn't that precisely NOT what I said? (...) They didn't. You seem to think they did, though. I admit (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) They also said there would only be 10,000 availible publicly. They said it through Jake, SHO, and press releases. Kind'a hard to misread that statment. (...) If it ws just a matter of forgiving a simple mistake and not part of a (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) I don't see why you keep going back to this. What they said was true. There WERE 10,000 available publically. Or, 10,000 via S@H. It's possible Maersk made some available to the public, I guess. But again, *IF* they had had more Maersk blue, I (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Mike Walsh

"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 (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Mike Walsh

"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 (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) 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. (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Mike Walsh

(...) This is laughable. It would be near impossible for a company to make a press release disappear. When comapnies issue press releases they go out over the wire and news sources pick them up. So if LEGO did remove a copy of a press release form (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) Laughable that their web sit periodicaly changes? You'll note that the link you provided does not cover every press realease ever released. That does not mean that it did not exist. -Ken (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) 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, (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

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 (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) You've put up a good fight-- I don't expect Lego or others would believe that there's a majority negative opinion at this point, whereas had none of us spoken up, that might have been a possible interpretation. I don't think anyone (excluding (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Unfortunatly your definitin of open minded means I have to agree with you. I don't and you left out of your quote that this was touted as the "LAST CHANCE" (...) Carful now your getting personal... Intent is not relevent. The did what hey did. (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote: <snip> (...) TLC's failings are directly related to this issue? TO their 'poor decision making?' Nothing to do with the fact that the competitors are consitently making a poorer quality product and (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem) —Dave Schuler

(...) I'd like to mention that legitimate competitors such as BTR and MegaBloks do not engage in the illegal duplication of TLC's protected intellectual property, so these two companies (at least) should be considered separate from those less (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem) —David Koudys

(...) I was referring to the direct kock-offs of TLC sets, and I apologize for inadvertently lumping all 'building brick' competitors into the same mold. (...) The issue for me is that they may have to take, or already have taken, this course of (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem) —David Eaton

(...) That's generally accurate, although IIRC there have been lawsuits eating up time and money from both TLC and MB. And I expect this is primarily "Comapny X" against Lego, like the Lego against the China knock-off, or Lego against Best-Lock. I (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I thought we already HAD an AFOL who was a lawyer... but he quit and went on to be a LLCA model builder. :-) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem) —Dave Schuler

(...) That's true. Of course, the LEGO v MegaBloks suits are somewhat different from LEGO v Shifty/Brick, since LEGO's beef with MegaBloks involves the specific design of the studs-n-tubes interlocking system and the "look" of the 2x4 brick, whereas (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) No as I said this is only part of the puzzel. This decision on it's own would mean nothing (...) Absolutly. You have to be making a lot of poor decisions to be loosing money for as long as they have been. (...) While this is the view of the (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Richie Dulin

(...) Lego is by definition a failure as a company? An interesting assertion. (...) I think it might be... (...) No... a company exists to pool resources and to protect shareholders. A company will often (but not always) seek to give a return to (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) Except Lego is not publicly owned. It is owned by people with increasingly less wealth. -Ken (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Richie Dulin

(...) You are correct in saying that it is not publically owned, but why do you say 'except'? It makes no difference. There are plenty of non publically owned companies that do not exist to make a profit. (...) Is it? How do you know? Cheers Richie (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ross Crawford

(URL) (...) "privately owned" (...) "decreasing wealth" ROSCO (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —C. L. GunningCook

(...) Geesh Ross, put the ruler away, someone might get hurt. Bad memories of overly strict teachers with nasty looks on their faces. Janey "C- Red Brick" (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) Shouldn't that be "Here come the grammar police"? :) DaveE (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Who polices the grammar police? (was Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)) —Richie Dulin

(...) And since when is 'watchout' a word? ;-) Cheers Richie Dulin (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Richie Dulin

(...) Privately owned is not the same as non publicly owned. (Though Lego is both non publicly owned and privately owned.) I'm not sure why I spelled it 'publically', though. Must be that speech to text software acting up again. ;-) (...) It would (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) Thanks for defending the "non Public part" As for "increasingly less wealth" it was exactly choosen to make the point. Lego has been loosing money for years and the family/owners have been increasingly worried about maintaining the (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Richie Dulin

(...) No worries. However, you did make the claim that "A company exists to make a profit". The fact that Lego is a private company is neither here to there, a company does not exist to make a profit. And yet that's what you claimed. You didn't lie, (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) we're splitting hairs a bit however my statement about their wealth is based upon suppositon. One can only afford to loose so much and if it were not an issue they would not be worried about maintaining control.-Ken (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) Why did reps form TLC state that it was 'the last chance'? Did they do it because they were marketing a limited set as a collector item (a la numbered Santa Fe), or was the 'last chance' only due to a limitation of coloured Maersk (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) My deletions are needed as A) it's part of the TOU & B)The server wont let you repost anything as long as your replies are getting with out snipping. As for coherent & cohesive there's pleny of people who agree with me. Your twisting things (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) It is you who are twisting the facts to suit your flawed opinion. In my country, as well as the US of A, by law a party is onnocent until proven guilty. You have as yet to prove TLC's guilt in this case. Since you have continuously deleted all (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke

(...) Dave, as you write yourself, you have stated things over and over again. But you have not convinced me. And I have not seen a single pro-TLC posting within the German AFOL community. They are obviously tending towards Ken's opinion as I do. (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) Hey Ben, I have, and he has, and we all have stated our POV over and over again. The thing is, the points that Ken made were refuted by others, as well as myself, in this very thread. These points were not addressed but summarily deleted, and (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) SNIP (...) A debate is an exchange of FACTS in order to prusuade the other party to your point of view. The facts that you seem to be dissapointed that I stick to are Lego said this was the "last chance" to buy Maersk blue and there (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kelly McKiernan

(...) Yes, LEGO said that. But some people are confusing a "statement of fact" with a "promise". They are different. You are of course welcome to continue to fervently believe LEGO lied to you, and to continue to believe that all statements by the (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) We are not talking about a business decision. Bley was a business decision. In this case they chose the words "Last chance" and "Very limited production run" as part of their adveritizing. Since this is how they choose to present (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

SNIP (...) SNIP (...) I don't know about your country but here that only applies in a court of law. I am certainlt alowed to come to a decision based on the facts at any time I wish. (...) Ok so it's not in the terms of use but I've read it (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) And that, right there, probably best sums up why you are meeting with so much disagreement. You believe that without TLC, your hobby ends, despite the collection of LEGO I assume you must already have, and despite a very extensive after-market (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) rtlToronto has beed doing hobby shows for the past few years, and the Meccano guys are there displaying their creations. If anyone ever wants to see what happens when the company providing their 'work material' for their chosen hobby (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego) !!

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Tim Courtney

(...) I've stayed out of this stupid, drawn-out thread so far. But, Dave, I do appreciate your efforts at holding the fort. Let it be known that I agree with what Dave says above. TLC, there are some people in the community who *do* appreciate your (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Brett Patterson

Well said Tim. Many people in TLC ARE trying hard, but despite whatever some people do, it will never be good enough. This will always be a problem for every company all the time, it is not alone to just LEGO. Anyways, I always am having differences (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Joe Meno

(...) snip (...) Dave, Your comments here are well taken, and I agree with them. While I have disagreed about some decisions from TLC, I make my position known with what I choose to buy. I bought the Maersk ship for me (and another as a gift) to (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote: SNIP (...) God bless that. Unfortunatly they are on a down hill path. This is undeniable, even TLC knows it. Nothing they have done so far has been able to turn it around. Possibly because they have failed to see (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kelly McKiernan

(...) Ken, I don't see how fair-weather AFOL posts like the above do anything to help TLC or improve the hobby for anyone. Kicking someone when they're down is impolite at best; and I'm sure you've heard the phrase "part of the solution or part of (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Fair weather? We are not talking about a sports team who lost one game and may win tomorrow. The company is in crissis. Ignoring this is foolish. They have yet to see or admit to the problem(s) at hand. TLC's stated goal for fisal year '05 was (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Tobbe Arnesson

(...) Yep. Turner Suspension Bicycles ( (URL) ) does just that in this forum: (URL) good luck finding anyone whining about the constant colour changes there ;) Some might think it's sad some colours go away or change but none is raving about it. (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) First off if you look around some more you'll find there's a lot of people who agree with me as to Lego's actions. Second my view of the hobby isn't so ego-centric. Half the joy comes from sharing the hobby especilly with those who have years (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) 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)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Crying is very unbecomming.... (...) Can I use this defense on my wedding vows? "Honest dear I meant what I was saying at the time but circumstances changed...." SNIP (...) The facts are that Lego Promised this to be a limited run. A new (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ka-On Lee

(...) <roll eyes> How about "Well dear I did say no more buying Lego this month, but you see they have 30% off this week..." Seriously, vows? (...) Well Dave it looks like you can end this. I must say your display of patient is just as impressive as (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) SNIP Exactly If I made a promiss not to buy anymore Lego for the month the latest sale would be a pretty poor excuse for breaking that promiss. -Ken (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke

(...) Thanks Ken, for being that patient in explaining your point (which is mine at the same time). A lie is a lie and a broken promise is a broken promise. And Lego is having no finacial success while Playmobil (in Europe) and Megabloks (in (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) One more time from the top--if you want to misinterpret what happened, by all means. But, let's look at Ken's very example, which is completely inaccurate to the actual situation. (...) LEGO made no such promise and there was no going back on (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Larry Pieniazek

Snipped most of it to focus on one point (...) Note that saying that you think a discussion is over, does anyone have anything NEW to add, is not censorship. If no one adds anything new, asking that people not repeat the same points except LOUDER is (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Ditto (...) Censorship does come into play when you say "LUGNET doesn't (yet) have threadlocking. But I personally (and this is not a statement of policy, I am not wearing my hat) wish we did. Because if we did, I'd lock this thread so fast it (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) I have no need to misinterpert anything. I can read what jake posted on these boards and words mean things. I read what Lego chose to publicly post. (...) They should have found a diffrent way to satisfy Maersk and keep their word to the (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Thanks for the support. Unfortunatly while I could go back and point out the posts where I have been personally called a liar, my asking of a simple moral question has been labeled a detriment to the site and some how it it said to "impune" (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Bryan Wong

(...) You're comparing this situation to wedding vows? Ok that's just ridiculous. (...) <snip> (...) Dave K, if you're still reading this, it's clear that Ken here really believes that LEGO has/had made some sort of special "promise" with him - (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) Jake Mckee posted on these very boards “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 (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Timothy Gould

Dear Ken, I propose a very simple solution. If you don't buy the new Maersk set because of your moral convictions that it is wrong then Jake's original statement, and any other TLC 'implications' becomes true. It will be your last chance to buy the (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)