Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:28:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
10840 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> 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
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 the facts.
They made a production run and used up all their Maersk Blue pellets, which is
what they wanted to do. It was a win-win for everyone--TLC doesn't have pallets
full of pellets gathering dust, we get a wonderful little set, stated as
"limited" by the fact that TLC didn't have Maersk Blue pellets--TLC couldn't
make anymore sets.
Then, after all this, Maersk and TLC entered into a *new* contract.
These facts are indisputable. There was no promises made that TLC wouldn't sign
another contract with Maersk. And you implying that TLC should make such a
promise, or that you read such a promise into this situation, is arrogant
presumption.
Again, you keep on stating that you are a man of your word. The words I'm
reading are 'arrogant presumption'.
Further, I resent your tagline that you seem to be ending all your posts with
regarding this issue. "Personally I keep my promisses. How about you?"
1--it wrongfully infers that TLC doesn't keep its promises with regards to this
situation. Since there was no promise to begin with, just stated facts that, at
the time were completely and unequivocably true (which does not negate future
contracts, by the way), then you are mis-stating right there, so you are not a
man of your word, unless lying is somethign you want to aspire to.
2--the 'How about you' immediately puts the respondee on the defensive, as if I
have made some sort of wrongful statement. Well, again I will point out, that
it is you who made the mis-statement and that you should not selectively
interpret the events and facts to suit your chip on your shoulder.
IF you want to continue to ignore what actually happened, then go right ahead
and this conversation ends here. If, however, you wish to debate the facts, I'm
all for it. Just step off your high horse before you do so.
Take care,
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (19 years ago, 23-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
|
|
|
|
