Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:42:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
11391 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
And on the other side of the coin many want to defend the company no matter
what they do. • SNIP
|
Being a relative moralist, I judge by intent. Lego’s intent was to give us as
much as they could of the remaining Maersk blue. Because they wanted to make
money from us. If they could’ve found a way to make more without spending
additional money on Maersk blue at the time, they would’ve. Their intent was
NOT to make a limited collector’s item. All of a sudden, presto, they got
their wish. Their intent never changed.
|
The end justifies the means?
| |
If their intent before had been to make a very-limited-quantity set, just to
watch us fall all over each other grabbing for sets, and now they decided to
make a second run to try it again, then yeah, I’d be on your side. Although
admittedly not as vehemently as you seem to be.
|
If their intent wasn’t so then why did they present it as so?
| |
| |
I’m with the “nay-sayers” because the company is on a destructive path and
if they go down so does the hobby I love. If you’ve paid any attention to
the financal news you know which direction the company is headed.-Ken
|
Oh, I know alright. For every step forward, they’ve been taking one back. And
meanwhile MegaBloks is eating up more and more of the market share. Ditto
Best-Lock and probably others. If they don’t start developing a better eye
for what products and decisions will do better and which will do worse,
they’ll continue to ride the slow train of decay that they started on in 1998
(I’d actually argue 1997).
But decrying this particular decision is useless.
|
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 only stake I have in it is
the over-all picture.-Ken
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
